Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

If you are fine with that, be my guest
I just feel sorry for the victims

You have no clue what happened on 9/11 and want a new investigation, but you can't give a valid reason for a new investigation.

Not Growing? I had over 100 pounds of Walnuts this year, 20 years ago we had 2 nuts. 9/11 truth has nuts too. You can't provide a valid reason for a new investigation, just like Jill, so you spew BS about not growing. Double fail.

Hes more libertarian, and does have many liberal leanings regarding social issues on the left than the right. Hed have the government stay our of personal matters like who sleeps with who , or who smokes pot, whereas the right would micromanage such things. That being said, his Truther theories are nutty, and i suspect just a money raking scheme,. No way he believes half the crap he peddles

Alex Jones is ideologically flexible enough to go where the ratings are. When a Republican sits in the oval office he leans more liberal. When a Democrat sits in the oval office he leans more conservative.

Whatever is against the prevailing authority is what keeps the money flowing.

__________________So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

As was mentioned, this is a pattern we've seen here many, many times: What you're saying it typical of the thought patterns of those who start with a conclusion and then look for confirming evidence. What exactly are you trying to imply by saying "without too many questions?"

... It is YOUR country which is not growing for 20 year and it is YOU and your compatriots who are guilty of an illegal invasion not me or my country
Take care

Did we invade your country because you would not send UBL right over? or are you Saddam's buddy, and he shot at the USAF once too many times... growing? Guess you missed out on buying the right stocks... Did your crops fail? What is your country known for, runaway inflation, or BS support of 9/11 truth? Are you the one who said the Holocaust was a lesson not learned by Jews?

What does your country's failure have to do with BS like this; and what the heck does this have to do with your failure to present a valid reason for your and Jill's failed claim for a new investigation into the most investigated crime 19 terrorists who did 9/11.

Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.

Posts: 2,510

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

No problem
It is YOUR country which is not growing for 20 year and it is YOU and your compatriots who are guilty of an illegal invasion not me or my country
Take care

Originally Posted by Tinfoil Hater

what does that even mean?

It means SashatheMagnificent is once again advocating guilt by association. She is apparently holding 350 million Americans personally responsible for the actions of their government, whilst giving herself a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Sasha, two questions about this: Where are you from, and where do you think I'm from?

It means SashatheMagnificent is once again advocating guilt by association. She is apparently holding 350 million Americans personally responsible for the actions of their government, whilst giving herself a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Sasha, two questions about this: Where are you from, and where do you think I'm from?

Not true
THere are lots of morally just Americans. You are just not one of them

Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.

Posts: 2,510

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

Not true
THere are lots of morally just Americans/UK/living in a country supportive of the US or people supporting the US. You are just not one of them

I think the truth is finally beginning to dawn on you, but I'll let you keep digging that hole until you state the answer.
In the meantime, I'd like you to show what immorality I have displayed in this debate?
My two positions so far have been that I do not think that people should be held responsible for the actions of others, be they members of their family or compatriots. Secondly, I object to the extensive interrogation and/or imprisonment of people guilty only of sharing DNA with a terrorist.
What do you find morally objectionable to either of these positions?
I will also note that you have shifted to an attempt to gain the moral high ground only because you were unable to provide any evidence for the guilt of the extended Bin Laden family, nor any reason why they should have been interrogated further, nor what difference you think this would have made to the overall investigation.

I think the truth is finally beginning to dawn on you, but I'll let you keep digging that hole until you state the answer.
In the meantime, I'd like you to show what immorality I have displayed in this debate?

I have checked your posts.
You have not shown any interest to study the possibility that the US Government may have not told all the truth about 9/11

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

My two positions so far have been that I do not think that people should be held responsible for the actions of others, be they members of their family or compatriots.

Wrong on two accounts
1) people are somehow responsible for the actions of their compatriots
For example, americans who did nothing when their govt was invading Iraq are repsonsible
2) I have never claimed that the bin Laden family should be held responsible for the crimes of Osama, just q in depth questioning should have been done

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Secondly, I object to the extensive interrogation and/or imprisonment of people guilty only of sharing DNA with a terrorist.

I have never talked about imprisonment
You made it up all by yourself

And, yes, an extensive interrogation should have been the VERY MINIMUM considering what had happened

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

What do you find morally objectionable to either of these positions?

I find both positions quite stupid

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

I will also note that you have shifted to an attempt to gain the moral high ground only because you were unable to provide any evidence for the guilt of the extended Bin Laden family, nor any reason why they should have been interrogated further, nor what difference you think this would have made to the overall investigation.

I have never talked about the guiltiness of the bin Laden family, made it up by yourself

Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.

Posts: 2,510

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

I have checked your posts.
You have not shown any interest to study the possibility that the US Government may have not told all the truth about 9/11

And how does this make me immoral?

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

Wrong on two accounts
1) people are somehow responsible for the actions of their compatriots
For example, americans who did nothing when their govt was invading Iraq are repsonsible

Then you are responsible for every criminal in your country.

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

2) I have never claimed that the bin Laden family should be held responsible for the crimes of Osama, just q in depth questioning should have been done

As I have said I don't know how many times, it was done. Why are you having such a problem digesting this?

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

I have never talked about imprisonment
You made it up all by yourself

And, yes, an extensive interrogation should have been the VERY MINIMUM considering what had happened

One is a consequence of the other. If you are going to question people over a matter of days- as you have said- then do you think it wise for the police to allow them to go home every evening?

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

I have never talked about the guiltiness of the bin Laden family, made it up by yourself

As for the other point see above

No, you actually said they were guilty above. Let me quote it again:

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

1) people are somehow responsible for the actions of their compatriots
For example, americans who did nothing when their govt was invading Iraq are repsonsible

They are, by your criteria, guilty on two counts. Firstly by being related to the perpetrators, and secondly by being of the same nationality and not doing anything to prevent the attacks.

Let me add another point here. You seem to be implying that the US government is covering up some information about the events of 9/11. At the same time, you are quite happy to acknowledge that OBL- and by extension Al Qaeda- were responsible for the attacks, to the extent that you think members of his family should have been more extensively interrogated.

What exactly do you think is being concealed?

Oh, and by the way, there is such a thing as a full stop. It indicates the end of a sentence. Bottom right of your keyboard. Looks like this:
.

In a way we all are, for the crimes we could have done something about and we did nothin

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

As I have said I don't know how many times, it was done. Why are you having such a problem digesting this?

As I have told you how many times, you can properly question people in just 2-3 days

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

One is a consequence of the other. If you are going to question people over a matter of days- as you have said- then do you think it wise for the police to allow them to go home every evening?

This is usually done in so many countries
I personally know people who, when needed, are summoned by the police

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

No, you actually said they were guilty above. Let me quote it again:

They are, by your criteria, guilty on two counts. Firstly by being related to the perpetrators, and secondly by being of the same nationality and not doing anything to prevent the attacks.

I meant legally guilty.
They are not legally guilty
They are morally guilty probably as you and me
Got it

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Let me add another point here. You seem to be implying that the US government is covering up some information about the events of 9/11. At the same time, you are quite happy to acknowledge that OBL- and by extension Al Qaeda- were responsible for the attacks, to the extent that you think members of his family should have been more extensively interrogated.

What exactly do you think is being concealed?

Let` s say that there may have been some business link or something the White House did not want to make public as embarrassing

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Oh, and by the way, there is such a thing as a full stop. It indicates the end of a sentence. Bottom right of your keyboard. Looks like this:
.

Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.

Posts: 2,510

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

Self evident

No, that's a non-answer. It isn't evident to me, and no-one else has posted here castigating me for my "self-evident" immorality, so why don't you explain it to me?

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

In a way we all are, for the crimes we could have done something about and we did nothin

Which again leads me to ask where you are from. You're being very coy about this, yet it is something that goes to the heart of your argument.
Where are you from?

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

As I have told you how many times, you can properly question people in just 2-3 days

And as I have told you many, many, many times, this was done. You even admitted it yourself.

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

I meant legally guilty.
They are not legally guilty
They are morally guilty probably as you and me
Got it

And because you have decided they are "morally guilty" they should be detained by the police and interrogated?
I have made this point before, but I think it's worth repeating. A society run on the legal lines suggested by truthers would be a dystopian nightmare beyond the wildest imaginings of Alex Jones.

Originally Posted by SashatheMagnificent

Let` s say that there may have been some business link or something the White House did not want to make public as embarrassing

Do you have any actual evidence, or even a concrete accusation to make, or are you going to continue to make these vague, veiled insinuations? I'd like to know, not just because it would be good to see what you actually believe. You are very free with your accusations and moral outrage, yet strangely silent on the foundations and evidence for these statements.
It would also be good to know what I am being accused of. You have condemned me as immoral, based on evidence you have refused to present. You assume I am complicit in the actions of the American government, without even knowing my nationality, my activities or my viewpoint.
As you have so far refused to state your own nationality, I will have to hazard a guess. Based on your attitude to justice, as I have outlined above, and your distancing yourself from any country that was involved in the second Gulf War, I'm going to guess at either Iranian or North Korean.
Am I right? Or are you hypocritically excusing yourself from your own arguments?

No, that's a non-answer. It isn't evident to me, and no-one else has posted here castigating me for my "self-evident" immorality, so why don't you explain it to me?

If it is not self evident to you that not being interested in considering whether the US government may have lied or partially lied or covered up something about nine eleven, it means that you are not also interested in the deaths occurred during 9/11 and the war in Iraq which was greatly influenced by 9/11

It is then safe to say that you are not a person I am interested in discussing with

If it is not self evident to you that not being interested in considering whether the US government may have lied or partially lied or covered up something about nine eleven, it means that you are not also interested in the deaths occurred during 9/11 and the war in Iraq which was greatly influenced by 9/11

It is then safe to say that you are not a person I am interested in discussing with

What? I never mentioned the Arab Spring. I specifically said Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not sure whether you're moving the goalposts or just changed subject.

How did that whole Arab Spring thing turn out?

And? What's your point? Are you agreeing with now that US intervention hasn't been all that wonderful?

Nope.

This is the broad brush you painted with:

Quote:

Far from declining to participate, half the reason parts of the world are going up in flames is because of irrational military intervention by USA.

If by "parts of the world" you only meant Iraq and Afghanistan, it was not clear. Remember, Clinton is being blamed for Libya and Syria, ISIS and Iran.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

In my view, if you left them alone they'd soon end up with the strongest bloke running the army and thence the country, which historically has been the lost successful and peaceful means of government in the ME in the past 100 years.

Plenty of killing first, but since they're doing that anyway, it would save a whole lot of US soldiers' lives. Not that I care about grunts in any way, but it's a shocking waste of money.

I find your view to be an over-simplistic fairytale. But I don't choose to argue it with you.

__________________Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

I watched Dusty Smith go through her platform and agreed with most of it. Seeing her pandering to nutjobs, while understandable as a candidate desperate for support, is enough for me to steer clear. But I'm Canadian so what does matter to me?!. TJ The Amazing Atheist for Prez!

Get on topic, the topic is not about Russian blunder in Afghanistan, or Russian bombs killing thousands of civilians in Syria, it is about 9/11 truth nutcase claims adopted by Jill Stein.

Was Jill Stein fooled by 9/11 truth idiotic claims, or is she making a bid for 9/11 truth conspiracy theory nuts' vote?
To date, no 9/11 truth claims are supported by evidence, and 9/11 truth claims only fool those who refuse to think for themselves.

In the video, some idiot stands up and spews the usual "we didn't get all the answers about 9-11" crap-ola, and instead of telling him to get a life, STFU, or to seek mental help she says she's open to a new investigation - hence fanning the flames.

She's done the same thing with vaccine questions. Stein is a moral coward.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.